Let me put this bluntly...
When people are talking about the popular vote in conjunction with calling this past election illegitimate because of it, the idea they are "sore losers" becomes quite obvious. When they talk of changing these rules using this election as the example, I'm not sure how else one can fairly characterize it. When it comes to the numbers, I think I just explained why just adding all states together doesn't give reasonably accurate results. The campaigns would have campaigned differently. Voters in solid blue and red states probably would have voted in greater numbers. No idea who would have really won a popular vote but adding each state together doesn't prove a thing.
You're painting people with a pretty large brush. Because there's some people who want to change the outcome of the election you're going to dismiss any discussion of the Electoral College? Of course no election should be retroactively invalidated, he already won, that is over and done with, and if Bush is any indication just because he lost the popular his first time around doesn't mean he can't win it on reelection.
But this time the EC did disagree with the popular vote, again, and the candidate who fewer amount of voters supported won. Maybe under a different type of election the votes would be split differently, but you shouldn't ignore the issue that does
exist now and the evidence we do
have for it based on what might
The way you describe the voting process sounds insane to me. Remember, most places on Earth don't have the same issues with recounting that you do, so there must be a solution for it. More than one I'll bet, each country must have found a different one.
The way we personally do it over here is with electronic voting machines. We've been using them since the mid-90s. They're not connected to the internet, if they are to be tampered with it must be done in person the same way as with a non-electronic machine. After the election is complete you can just check the machine to get all the results instantly. The machine provides a receipt after a person votes, so you can check immediately that your vote has been tallied. You hand the receipt before leaving and it is kept secure so that a manual recount can be done if necessary, though I never heard of that happening. Every person is registered to a specific table at a specific polling station and they must show photo ID and provide either a signature or a fingerprint scan to vote, so no one can vote in someone else's place.
I just love it when you actually discuss an issue and some wanker comes in claiming how you are "dismissing" or "hand-waving away" an issue because they disagree.
I explained in quite a bit of detail why the system of American government formed the way it did. How this system roughly works and why it works better to appease smaller states. And even the difficulty of getting a super majority that would be necessary to change the Constitution. And here I stand accused of just dismissing it...
You are the one completely dismissing why popular vote might not be the best thing to govern by. Not even going to address again the validity of adding up votes when that is not how an election is decided. It's like saying your football team should have won because they took twice the shots on goal or had a decisive margin in time of possession even though the score is 2-1 against. Because the rules of the game decide the winner by shots into the net, not number of shots, popular vote, or time of possession.
Someone mentioned what if there was a World President. With an estimated 7.3 billion people in the world and 1.3 billion in each of China
and India, tell me how happy Europe or other countries would be if they voted say 80% for one candidate but he still lost because the winner won most of China
and India? And what if this happens election after election?
You might think that is best, but that doesn't make it true.
As an aside, here's an interesting article concerning the electoral map http://www.businessinsider.com/2016-election-results-maps-population-adjusted-cartogram-2016-11